Theres a surprise. and yet not one. Forbes reporting good news about a democrats program. Hmm I may have to rethink forbes

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

We await your response, Keith.

A post so I can change the thread name.

I think he's much more interested in stirring pots of his own then dip into anothers

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Oh wonderful! "New security to thousands of workers" in a country of 300 million.
Yes, a trillion $ takeover of 1/6 of the economy. What a success!

No, failure after failure after failure.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/obamacare_flight_of_the_mds_2zWYU1R9DYG4K6dJ8oj8gP

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/08/health/policy/08health.html

http://www.gallup.com/poll/145277/New-Low-Healthcare-Employer.aspx

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/2010/12/examiner-editorial-breast-cancer-drug-offers-glimpse-death-panels#ixzz18CD64QWY

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703727804576011791786531256.html

http://blogs.ajc.com/jamie-dupree-washington-insider/2010/12/07/more-health-waivers/

http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2010/11/20/union-drops-health-coverage-for-workers-children/

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=11910726

The blog linked to (at the magazine for rich folks) does not use the word "security" or "thousands," hence Keith must not have read the article he claims to be responding to. Hence, we have no reason to read the 50 articles in his heaps of links.

I'm not reading his drivel

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

More to the point, it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Repeal it or defund Obamacare and kill it off.

The federal government CANNOT compel you to buy anything from a private entity, period.

but a state can. I get pissed every month when I pay my mandatory car insurance bill. everyone seems to be glad to do it but It bothers me that the whole thing is a scam. the state insists I have insurance but doesnt offer an alternative. SO i pay whatever rates they insist I pay. Talk about state sponsored capitalism. and they've been doing this for how many decades now? I'd say your point once again pointless. Theres no difference from my state making me buy car insurance and you being forced to carry Health insurance

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

How can you be so wrong so often? It staggers the mind of those with common sense!

1) With auto insurance, you are required to carry insurance to cover damage done to others, not yourself.

2) States impose the auto insurance requirement, not the federal government, because the states license drivers and vehicles. Driving is, after all, voluntary and conducted on public property (roads); there is no requirement for licensing or insurance for those who drive only on their private property. People who don’t drive on public roads are not required to purchase a license or the insurance.

3) Those who have auto insurance only file claims when significant damage occurs. Auto insurance doesn’t pay for routine maintenance, like oil changes, lube jobs, windshield wiper replacement and tire rotation.

4) If we forced insurers to write comprehensive policies on burning homes, we would have no insurers left in the market. However, the government wants health insurers to do the same thing; they need the mandate to force all of us to assume that risk through the higher premiums that subsidize it. By the way, the government is doing exactly that — forcing insurers to write policies after an illness.

5) Auto insurance is priced to risk. If a driver lives in a high-crime area, then the premiums will rise to cover the risks associated with burglary. If they drive badly (and receive moving violations), premiums go up, or in some cases, the insurer will drop the driver. Policies are priced for risk according to age as well; the youngest and oldest drivers pay more due to their propensity for causing losses. Those who drive well and present a lower risk get rewarded with lower premiums. Right now, the federal government is preventing insurers in some instances from risk-pricing health insurance to impose government-approved fairness. That means we all pay more, removing any incentive to lower risk.

There is no comparison.






More and more, I believe liberalism is a mental disease.

Except you are dead wrong on auto insurance. In Mass IIRC you buy auto insurance when you buy the gas for your lawnmower.

A couple of other examples:
To get your building permit the government forces you to buy the services of an architect and an engineer.

If you have a business, the Fire Marshall forces you to buy fire extinguishers and have them refilled.

My city forces me to paint my address number on the curb and I have to use a city approved contractor to boot.

IIRC there are some cities they force you to buy the services of a vet to neuter you animal before you can get a license and not having a license is a criminal offense.

If you are a Hospital the government forces you to hire a minimum ratio of nurses to patients.

The government forces all of us to buy a stamp or buy some other method to file our income taxes.

The government forces us to buy clothes as it has laws to prevent us from wandering about naked.

I'm sure we could make this list go into the thousands.

So it is a well and long established fact the government can force us to buy things.

---

No, the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CANNOT force you to buy things from private entities.

All of your examples are invalid. Do not mix fed and state or local.

...and buying a stamp? Are you serious? The post office is a federal entity, not a private one and you aren't FORCED to buy anything. You can deliver it in person if you so desire.

The individual MANDATE will be struck down before SCOTUS and rightfully so with very good argument. See pages 10 thru 14:

http://www.landmarklegal.org/uploads/Pro%20Bono_Va%20Health%20Care%20SJ%20Brief.pdf

If the feds can force you to buy goods or services from a private entity, what else can they mandate you to do with your life? If you think this a good thing, think about how afraid you are of "evil fear mongering republicans", and what they will force you to do when they run house/senate/presidency. Do you still want to set this benchmark for government running your life or not?

"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have." Gerald Ford

More to the point, it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Repeal it or defund Obamacare and kill it off.

The federal government CANNOT compel you to buy anything from a private entity, period.

Really? I wonder why many of the Founding Fathers thought the Federal Government could compel a sizable portion of the citizens to buy something from a private entity. Take a look at the provisions of The Militia Act of 1792 (repealed in 1903).

BTW, technically Obamacare is constitutional until SCOTUS say otherwise.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

How can you be so wrong so often? It staggers the mind of those with common sense!

1) With auto insurance, you are required to carry insurance to cover damage done to others, not yourself.

I buy insurance on my car not because of a state mandated altruistic enterprise. I do it to keep them off my ass. Isn't it odd that you make Auto insurance sound like a communist plot. or did that escape you too

I buy Health insurance to prevent diseases that will affect others . I also have full coverage on my car because its expensive to fix without. Hmmm I'm expensive to fix if something catastrophic happens.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

I bet you remember way back when We were forced to have Bank accounts to cash our checks. Now it seems like a logical thing. In the past people would just cash their checks at the banks where the account was drawn on. This insured that the individuals actually got paid. After the law we were forced to have an account at a bank to get money. there are still quite a few out there that just as soon not and are willing to pay the fees at check cashing houses instead.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

I bet you remember way back when We were forced to have Bank accounts to cash our checks. Now it seems like a logical thing. In the past people would just cash their checks at the banks where the account was drawn on. This insured that the individuals actually got paid. After the law we were forced to have an account at a bank to get money. there are still quite a few out there that just as soon not and are willing to pay the fees at check cashing houses instead.

I believe you in ERROR again
you fell for the HYPE of needing an account
To What LAW Are you referring that banks do not need to honor their checks ON DEMAND ??

You want to talk check cashing BS
Who's required to cash federal checks ??

---

I bet you remember way back when We were forced to have Bank accounts to cash our checks. Now it seems like a logical thing. In the past people would just cash their checks at the banks where the account was drawn on. This insured that the individuals actually got paid. After the law we were forced to have an account at a bank to get money. there are still quite a few out there that just as soon not and are willing to pay the fees at check cashing houses instead.

I believe you in ERROR again
you fell for the HYPE of needing an account
To What LAW Are you referring that banks do not need to honor their checks ON DEMAND ??

You want to talk check cashing BS
Who's required to cash federal checks ??

Just about every bank refuses to honor its checks on demand for the full amount unless you have an account with them. It has been a real PITA in California where the employer has to find a bank that does and doesn't charge for it. Several of the major banks can no longer be used to cut payroll checks in California because of it.

---

Just about every bank refuses to honor its checks on demand for the full amount unless you have an account with them. It has been a real PITA in California where the employer has to find a bank that does and doesn't charge for it. Several of the major banks can no longer be used to cut payroll checks in California because of it.

No wonder the banks are needing bailouts
Their CHECK are no more than toilette paper
That's about all they are good for

I guess I stand corrected
I'll never accept a personal check again ... CASH ONLY